Christians, what would it take?

[Inigo Montoya]

What would have to happen for you Christians to abandon your beliefs in God, miracles, the accuracy of the Bible's stories, etc.?

We have a couple panentheists, at least one Muslim, and heaven knows what else frequenting this subforum; you folk feel free to chime in on your respective versions of "God/god" and apply the OP to it as you see fit.

On a personal note, I'm especially anxious to hear from Ted and FtK, Goose and BThread.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 9 by liamconnor]

Well, when asked if the Jews should pay a tax of coins that had the graven images of two (false) gods on them, Jesus blasphemously responded,
"Render to the god Caesar, what is Caesar's, render to the god Jehovah,what is his."
And not very far from the temples dedicated to either god, either.

There's a difference between worshiping coins with the gods on them and actually being required to pay taxes. Should Jesus say they shouldn't pay their taxes?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by Claire Evans]

Ah, again you gentiles defending the tax, and ignoring the religion. You, like the Greeks and Romans persuaded by that argument, no doubt see how clever Jesus was to say what he did: He basically said; respect both Gods. Now were you truly religious, you would see why the tax was a problem:

While it is lawful to pay taxes, it is not lawful to venerate foreign gods.
Caesar and Pax are graven images of foreign gods.
Foreign gods who are venerated by paying those coins.
The God Caesar, it says so, right on the coins, desired to be worshiped via sacrifice of that tax, or as it was called back then, a tithe. Is it lawful to tithe to Caesar and his authority Jove?

So, no, the tax is fine.
That paying it was made into a religious act by Caesar, and by proxy, Jove, is against the Commandments, makes Jesus' support of it an undeniable tell that he is a fraud.

Allow me to make obvious what Jesus said:
Give to the god Caesar the things that he desires, but don't fail to give to the god Theos the things that he desires.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 32 by Willum]

Jesus clearly and unequivocally avoided saying that faithful Jews should pay taxes to Caesar; that was exactly the 'trap' that his critics wanted him to fall into - or one half of the dilemma - and the whole point of the story is that he did not. He left it up to his hearers' judgement as to what "belongs to Caesar" and what "belongs to God" and therefore what they should render unto each.

Early Christians, with the view that nothing is unclean in and of itself (Mark 7, 1 Cor. 8) and that they should be forsaking their coins and worldly wealth in the first place (Mark 10, Acts 2) obviously took it as confirmation that paying taxes was acceptable. But to his immediate hearers, Jesus' answer condemned his critics - who of course paid their taxes like everyone else, but unlike Jesus' movement did not give all they owned to do God's work - as implicitly acknowledging Roman ownership of what they paid in tax whilst rejecting God's ownership of everything else they kept for their own pleasure.

Of course being quite wealthy themselves, many Christians don't really like to think too much about what Jesus meant by rendering to God that which belongs to him, so we're commonly left with the misapprehension that Jesus' answer was only about taxes

[Willum]

[Replying to post 33 by Mithrae]

Ah, my good gentile, like the Greeks and Romans of the time, you think Jesus was clever in avoiding the trap by saying give what belongs to the government, or Caesar, to him.

Conveniently IGNORING, because it would invalidate the religion, that the coins were graven images of foreign gods, and that those gods desired worship in the form of those coins.

The coins were religious symbols, like a cross, not just currency. They had Caesar as god, written right on them!

Now if you were Jewish, you would see this very plainly, and rather than pay the tax, you would revolt against the blasphemous government.

Which, if you will review your history, is exactly what happened.

But by all means, keep focusing on the TAX, and not on what religious people normally allege is important, the TRUTH. That Jesus advocated worshiping the god Caesar in the method he desired, via tribute of coins with the graven images of gods on them.

He may have avoided the Roman trap, but the Jewish trap they killed him for. Even in the Bible.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 33 by Mithrae]

Ah, my good gentile, like the Greeks and Romans of the time, you think Jesus was clever in avoiding the trap by saying give what belongs to the government, or Caesar, to him.

Conveniently IGNORING, because it would invalidate the religion, that the coins were graven images of foreign gods, and that those gods desired worship in the form of those coins.

The coins were religious symbols, like a cross, not just currency. They had Caesar as god, written right on them!

Now if you were Jewish, you would see this very plainly, and rather than pay the tax, you would revolt against the blasphemous government.

Unfortunately you have provided no source or evidence whatsoever that the mere presence of divine iconography on those coins was considered an act of worship, by anyone. In fact most Jews from all major sects and walks of life paid the required Roman taxes for well over a century between the conquest of Judea in c.63 BCE and the First Revolt in c.67 CE, and for well over two hundred years after the revolts also. You are simply denying historical fact in your assertion that Jews in general considered it idolatrous: And this has been pointed out to you by others in previous threads.

Furthermore, even if it were considered idolatrous by Jews - which it wasn't - I explicitly provided a reference to Paul's explanation that innocent involvement in actions which others considered idolatrous was not contrary to early Christian ethics, derived ultimately from Jesus' teaching that nothing outside the body can make one unclean. Of course, instead of going to all that trouble of actually learning something beyond your pet conspiracy theories, you've just stooped to claiming that I am the one "ignoring" the things you disingenuously pretend to be facts. Based on past experience I am not at all surprised.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 35 by Mithrae]

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, a two-thousand year old lie is demonstrated so...
Here is the coin with its iconography.

The word "divi" plain enough for those of us not familiar with Latin to recognize divine, from it.
And what do you mean, I have provided no evidence? Are you so unfamiliar with history?
OK, History lesson!
Who do you think empowered Rome? Tiberius? No, he claimed power from Jove and the divinity of his father, Augustus.
Do I really need to demonstrate that as well? When I do, provide this trivial information, will you simply deny it?

Also, please provide a reference backing up your claim that the coins weren't idolatrous, given they meet all criteria for graven images, I am aware of... and that putting other gods before me too... tsk, tsk.
But perhaps you can convince me...

to early Christian ethics

There were no Christians at that time, another fact religious folks must ignore.

and Paul does not speak for the Jews. To the contrary. Your reasoning is anachronistic, and so, validly dismissed.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, no, the tax is fine.
That paying it was [...] against the Commandments...

Which commandments are you referring to? I am aware of no commandment that prohibits the paying of pagan taxes with foreign coins. Neither am I aware of a commandment against the touching or handling of idols. I'm certainly not aware of a commandment against the returning of someone's property to their rightful owner, even if that property is a graven image.

So, no, the tax is fine. That paying it was made into a religious act by Caesar ...

Foreigners and pagans had no authority to decide what was or wasn't an idolatrous act for God's people. Caesar had no more right to determine what a Jew would view as blasphemy than he had to declare a blasphemy acceptable , that decision was dictated by Divine Law and principle, so again, which biblical commandement prohibits the specific actions above?


Thanks,

JW

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 22 by Willum]

No one debates Roman policy. What is debated, what you have offered no evidence for whatsoever, is whether this sufficiently explains the origins of Christianity.

Quote:
Every actual document from the time period refutes you.

I'd love to see one.

Read all the books of Josephus. There was tension between Roman government and Jewish sensibilities; but Jewish sensibilities seems to have won the day.

The examples are legion. Perhaps rather than flinging out vague allusions, we can both provide explicit citations. For instance:

55 But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, moved the army from Caesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images;
56 on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time;
57 but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Caesarea, and interceded with Pilate for many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons secretly, while he came and sat upon his judgment seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them;
58 and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to surround them, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would stop disturbing him, and go their ways home.
59 But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Caesarea.
(Ant 18:55-59 JOE)

Here is an explicit case in which Jewish sensibilities won ought against Roman assimilation.

Here is another; the quote follows Pilate being recalled from Jerusalem to Rome to answer for charges made against him. Vitellius was sent to Jerusalem to fill the role. And what did he do?

90 But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them permission to have the care of the high priest's vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly, (Ant 18:90 JOE)

Quote:
It isn't. Jove is an English word. This has been explained to you before.

No, J is an English letter, if you must bring this down to this level of deception, then here, I'll be the Electric Company's Letterman

How about plug in the actual Latin word for our very English Jove, which is not Iove, but Iuppiter? Does Iuppiter sound anything like Yahweh?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by JehovahsWitness]

Oh, that is so cute, you use the same misconstrue and denial that Mithrae and Claire used.
I guess y'all are just unable to face the facts that the Jews didn't object to the tax, they objected to the blasphemy (using the term loosely).

So, no, my dears, paying taxes to a foreign government isn't a sin.

Trafficking in graven idols dedicated to false gods to honor those false god's wishes is a problem on soo many levels.

It is enough for an objective mind to say, "Yep, calling Jesus out, that would be enough for me to reject the religion." Iaw the OP topic.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by liamconnor]

Ah, brother Liam, it is not on this poor disbeliever to prove what he believes is a false religion.
I am sure, in this context, you'll agree?

Read all the books of Josephus.

Why read all the books of Joe? There is only the debated entry about the greatest story ever told, and I hold with those who say the Testimonium Flavium is a forgery - well, insertion.
Note the source is one you, as a historian, should respect... and there are countless others, of course, ones, you should, as a historian, find more equitable than that humble link.

Unfortunately, that is the way of all Christian documents. They all have the shame of controversy about them.
And then with Jesus violating commandments right and left, one really isn't left with a cross to pray to, is one?